119 N.E.3d 182
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Dec. 25, 2017, K.B. (defendant’s live-in girlfriend) fled their apartment after an altercation in which she alleged Chambless struck and strangled her; she ran to a nearby gas station and called 911.
- Medics and police observed injuries (abrasions on the jaw, bruise on the neck, redness and a scratch on the neck, swelling on the cheek) and K.B. told a medic and officers that Chambless attacked her.
- Chambless was arrested and held at the county jail; his jail phone calls were recorded and he spoke by phone with K.B., during which K.B. told him, “you strangled the fuck out of me.”
- At trial K.B. recanted, testifying she fabricated the allegation to get Chambless jailed and later said she had choked herself; the State nonetheless admitted the 911 call, the medic’s recounting of K.B.’s statements, and the recorded jail call.
- A jury convicted Chambless of Level 5 domestic battery (with prior), Level 6 domestic battery, and Level 6 strangulation; the court merged counts and sentenced him to five years (three executed, two suspended).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chambless) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 911 recording | 911 call is admissible as an excited utterance reflecting spontaneity and distress | Admission was hearsay and, unobjected-to at trial, constituted fundamental error to admit without foundation for excited utterance | Court: No fundamental error; facts (short time after assault, distress, labored breathing) satisfied excited-utterance exception and admission was proper |
| Medic Bradbury’s testimony recounting K.B.’s ID of attacker | Statements to medic were for medical diagnosis/treatment and identification of a live-in attacker was reasonably pertinent to treatment | Identification of perpetrator is not generally admissible under medical-treatment exception | Court: Admissible — attacker ID was relevant to diagnosis/treatment (domestic-abuse context); trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Recorded jail phone call (K.B.’s statement) | Jail calls recorded with notice; recordings admissible, including victim’s statement; defendant’s admissions also admissible as statements against interest | K.B.’s out-of-court statement is hearsay and should be excluded; defendant argues hearsay tainted case | Court: Admission proper — jail warned inmates calls are monitored; discussing the charged crime on recorded jail calls is admissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence given K.B.’s recantation | Independent, non-hearsay physical observations by medic and officers corroborated the out-of-court statements and supported conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | With inadmissible hearsay excluded (per defendant’s contention), only recantation remains; verdict is against reason and merits application of incredible-dubiosity rule | Court: Sufficiency upheld — independent medical and police observations provided substantial corroboration; incredible-dubiosity doctrine inapplicable (recantation vs prior statements is for jury credibility determinations) |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Davenport v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. 2001) (elements and analysis for excited-utterance exception)
- Yamobi v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1344 (Ind. 1996) (timing and spontaneity in excited-utterance analysis)
- Nash v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (permitting perpetrator ID to medical personnel where identity is reasonably pertinent to treatment)
- Baer v. State, 866 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 2007) (admissibility of recorded jail phone calls after inmate notice)